As many of you know, the chatop guide on 05 needs a major update. So, EC has created a new up-to-date version, but due to their current absence has been unable to finish it, so with Quik's permission I've edited it to make a hopefully-final draft. I've had some feedback in #opchat but any more here would be great- hopefully I can have this published and updated by the end of the week.

"Dogpiling, overwhelming the chat, devolving into petty arguments and accusations instead of actual discussion are all things operators should work to stop instead of participating in." can be better grammared to "Dogpiling, overwhelming the chat, and devolving actual discussions into petty arguments and accusations are all things operators should work to stop instead of participate in."

"… might be a problem; operators operators are welcome to use their best judgement…" Worded a word there.

"Operators in chat are required to have a lot of free reign" Should be 'free rein'.

"It may also apply to newbies who have not joined the site yet and have no current questions, because the site passcode may be freely discussed in 17." I'm not too sure on this; since as long as I can remember, we Do Not Say The App Thing In 17. Please clarify?

I've gone through and made edits as suggested above. I'll continue to make edits as they're suggested, but I'm giving it until Monday before I finish it up and publish it. If you've got feedback, now's the time to say so!

I sincerely wish we had a full week and not maybe 4-5 days for this discussion. I don't always have time for immediate review.

and we often assume the worse

the worst*

#Site19's main purpose is general SCP chat. If someone comes in and wants to get a draft reviewed, or talk about a new article, an op should call attention to this discussion.

We haven't made this a policy in many months or over a year since people complained about this. Drafts often go ignored by ops and members alike. Are we changing this officially?

A short warning ban of any length between 5 minutes and 2 days (48 hours).

I would like this to be pointed out that the warning ban should be done in more extreme circumstances, like a massive political argument ignoring stop orders and the like.

For now, keep in mind the following ideas while you're reading the next few tabs to help understand your job here:

The distinction between intending to be shitty and being shitty have been ignored for months, otherwise we should actively allow alt-right people to consistently espouse their racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynist, etc. views so long as they don't intend to harm anyone/just wanted to talk about a subject and their conversations can be stopped at no consequence to them.

The distinction between intending to be shitty and being shitty have been ignored for months, otherwise we should actively allow alt-right people to consistently espouse their racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynist, etc. views so long as they don't intend to harm anyone/just wanted to talk about a subject and their conversations can be stopped at no consequence to them.

All instances of "OPs" should be changed to "ops", since op is an abbreviation, not an acronym.

Under "Understanding Your Job":

-> "The first, the Jaded Pessimist, always assumes the worst." and "The second, the Naive Optimist, always assumes the best." As written, they're clunky, and the (lack of) verb agreement bugs me. You don't really need the descriptors I added, but I do believe these need to be made into complete sentences.

"The most difficult part about your job is riding the line between these two extremes." -> "The most difficult part about your job is finding a happy medium between these two extremes." Conceptually, there's a whole lot more real estate between the two extremes than just a line.

"ridiculous, over-the-top trolling" -> "trolling". Not like we're gonna tolerate much if any trolling.

"if an op wants to officially call for a stop to a particular conversation, the op should announce that their decision is an official stop order": I suggest appending "as well as specify the topic of conversation that has been stopped".

Under "Assorted Points of Order":

Under "Who handles appeals", as written, it reads like chadmins won't/don't take appeals except for escalated incidents. Unless there's some policy change I'm not aware of, this should be changed so that chadmins may take appeals (especially if no other chops are around). Still should include verbiage that incidents can be elevated to (another) chadmin or whatever.